Yes. Ststistically, there is more than a 3X to 1 chance that a base hit will be a single rather than an extra base hit. Therefore, if you are going to rely on hits to score the lead-off guy from first (as opposed to sacrifices) you will in all likelihood require two hits (even a double with a runner on first doesn't score him slightly more than half the time).

Now with a successful sacrifice, you have a runner in scoring position with one out where a single will score him more than half the time. The chances of getting one hit with two outs to spare are greater than the chances of getting two hits with three outs to spare, generally speaking. Moreover, the sacrifice removes the risk of the double play. The sacrifice increases your chance of scoring a run in the inning, but decreases your chances of possibly scoring 3 or 4 in the inning.

Of course, the circumstances can offset the averages. It would not make sense to sacrifice your #3 or #4 hitter, who may be more likely to get an extra base hit than a single. Also, the sacrifice leaves a base open, allowing an opposing team to pitch around the next batte. In short teams want to avoid sacrificing a very good hitter, only to put the burden on a low hitter. Therefore, it makes most sense to sacrifice with the #8, #9 or #1 batters.

There was an obvious decrease in sacrifices (and hit & runs and stolen bases) in the 90s as the outrageous surge in homeruns, whether it be from smaller parks, expansion or steroids, had most of the teams looking for the big inning. Runners were basically instructed to cling to their bases and wait for a long ball. As a result, many of the fundamentals, like bunting, hitting behind the runner and base running and sliding have deteriorated, especially in the AL.

Blibble, a very good manager in the 70s, who hated sacrificing, was Earl Weaver, a true believer of the three run homer. He always said, "You only get 27 outs in a game. Why do I want to give away any of them.